Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I stand in support of this Bill, which seeks to provide more extensive protection and better and fairer provisions for young persons up to the age of 18 years, in their best interests.

First, I would like to speak on clause 4 which amends section 4 of the Act. I support replacing "emotional injury" with "emotional harm". "Injury" tends to suggest that the abuse is rather tangible or explicit and is visible, while "harm" is more all-encompassing and suggests that while it may not necessarily be visible, the damage the abuse has caused is much more far-reaching and may manifest itself in ways other than that which is visible.

There are cases where parents or guardians, in their fervour to bring out the best in their children, end up subjecting the child to emotional abuse or acts of degradation that erode the child’s feeling of self-worth, self-esteem or overall well-being.

Some parents see their scoldings and nagging or even acts of punishment as necessary acts of discipline for their children. Where and how do we draw the line? And when do the authorities step in? Do we intervene when a member of public complains? Or do we wait until a significant adult in the child’s life, such as a school teacher or an adult relative, takes notice and informs the authorities? Or do we need to wait until the child who is a victim of emotional or mental abuse speaks up or seeks help?

I seek clarification from the Ministry as to where and how do we draw the line with regard to a child or young person being in need of care or protection, as well as when do the authorities step in?

I am a parent, too, and I do understand the expectations some parents have on their children, in wanting them to realise their full potential and do well in school and later on in life. But we should not condone authoritarian or even authoritative parenting that revolves around scoldings or punishments or persistent nagging or acts of degradation, which are, essentially, abuse towards the child. As a parent, love should always be the basis of our care and discipline towards our children. We can certainly discipline our children and be firm with them in order to instil good values, but this should be done on the basis of love and care, and not on the basis of hate or wanting to inflict fear or pain.

Some children do suffer as a result of their parents' style of parenting. Some suffer in silence while some start to develop a facade of indifference, while some of these emotionally or physically abused children would, in turn, inflict pain on others who are in a position more vulnerable than they are, such as a younger sibling or a classmate or schoolmate.

Hence, I support the amendments to section 4 to expand and set out the circumstances in which a child or young person may be regarded as being subject to emotional or psychological abuse and would need care or protection beyond that which can be given by their biological parents or legal guardians. With these amendments, I hope more protection and the necessary care can be extended to the children or young persons who have otherwise been subject to abuse or harm by those who should have been protecting them.

Next, I would like to speak on the fostering of young persons. I am supportive of the formation of the Committee on Fostering. I believe this will help provide a more objective and fairer platform for the review of foster care to be provided to young persons who have to be removed from the care of their biological parents, or even foster parents.

Within the last one year, I have had two families living within my constituency who came to seek help regarding their foster care arrangements. One of them, a couple with grandchildren, had been foster parents to a young girl since she was only a few weeks old. The gentleman of this couple who are foster parents – let us call him Mr C – had alleged that MSF had acted in a biased and unfair manner towards him and his wife, and had, what he claimed, listened to and sided unfairly with the girl's biological father. As a result, the girl was taken away from their foster care to be reunited with her biological father.

As expected, Mr C was furious. He claimed that MSF had taken decisions on the matter "with no regard to the child's well-being". I had asked MSF to review the appeal made by Mr C to return the girl to his and his wife’s foster care. MSF had reviewed the case extensively and I learnt that it was Mr C's wife who had decided to discontinue care as a foster parent to the child in the first place.

Another couple, Mr S and his wife, have been foster parents with MSF for about nine years. They have cared for three children since then, with two of them still living in their care. A third child, the youngest of the three, was under their care for about six years, until he was removed from their care recently.

Mr S and his wife were distraught and claimed that MSF had taken the boy from their care with little notice and without considering their inputs and views on the matter. They also claimed that the boy did not want to return to his biological mother who had recently been released from prison. Again, as expected, Mr S and his wife blamed MSF and claimed MSF had acted unfairly and did not consider the best interests of the child.

In both instances, I can fully understand the feelings of the foster parents. They had given their time, care and love towards the child they had fostered and cared for over several years. And, inevitably, a strong emotional bond would have been formed between the foster parents and the child over those years. To let go of the child once their foster care is no longer needed is not an easy thing to do. At the same time, I must state my support for the work that MSF does. As a Ministry, it has to look at each and every foster care case with objectivity and fairness, and in the best interest of the child in question.

It is unfortunate that when a foster care case does not turn out the way that the foster parents or even biological parents expect, it is somehow expedient to blame the MSF and the MSF officers working on the case for it. This is very unfortunate and unfair, indeed.

Hence, I feel that the insertion of clause 23 in the Bill to include a new Part IIA on Fostering will be useful in delineating the rules and provisions for fostering, particularly in setting up a Committee on Fostering made up of individuals appointed by the Minister who may be able to provide inputs and opinions from a seemingly more neutral and balance perspective.

If possible, I would propose that the Minister include relevant professionals who would be able to provide significant inputs on the well-being of the child. These relevant professionals could be medical psychiatrists, clinical or child psychologists, school counsellors and educational professionals, among others.

I would also propose that this Committee consider for each foster case that is being contested or disputed, to interview the foster parents, the child or young person in question and biological parents to better understand their motivation for wanting a particular outcome pertaining to the foster case – even while they consider the report and recommendations made by MSF. Eventually, these different inputs of important information can be put up as recommendations to the court dealing with the particular foster case if need be.

Likewise, I would propose that where an order is made by a Youth Court, this Committee on Fostering is able to make recommendations to the Director-General of Social Welfare in deciding on any category 1, 2 or 3 matters relating to the child or young person, including the identification of a fit person to which the care of the child or young person is assigned.

Here, I would like to state my support for childcare leave, extended childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave to be extended to foster parents who have opened up their hearts and homes to these vulnerable children and young persons in need of love and care. Our foster parents also need the parental-related leave to care for their foster children.

One aspect of this Bill that I would like to seek clarifications on is clause 48 with the introduction of section 68A. I am somewhat concerned with the provision to allow the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons, or any other authorised persons in that home, to use a mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home, called a detainee, in order to prevent the detainee from escaping from custody, or to prevent the detainee from inflicting any bodily injury on themselves or on others. What forms of "mechanical restraints" are allowed to be used? To what extent are these mechanical restraints used? And what if the mechanical restraints used inflict even more injury on the detainee than that it was first meant to prevent in the first place?

Hence, while I understand the need for restraints for violent or hostile behaviour, how does the Ministry decide, on a balance of probabilities and outcomes, when and what forms of mechanical restraints are to be used? At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The challenges and issues faced by our community should not be taken lightly or are easily resolved. Various factors can give rise to certain challenges or issues that affect a family, and its solutions can also include various factors and types of assistance. There is still room to further strengthen these solutions.

Even so, we should acknowledge that various initiatives have been implemented by the Government to overcome the community’s challenges or issues, such as the establishment of M3 (M to the power of 3) which involves the combination of efforts, manpower and also funds from MUIS, MENDAKI and MESRA, which comprise grassroots organisations and efforts by volunteers. M3 was established to specifically help families within our Malay/Muslim community and this also involves a collaboration with MSF. This is a good initiative that has an encouraging and positive effect in strengthening our families, enhancing our skills and job opportunities, improving access to quality and affordable education, as well as rolling out initiatives that focus on our children’s well-being. We must continue to support the Government’s objectives and initiatives like the M3.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the care of children and young persons who are removed from the care of their biological parents or from their foster parents, will always be a sensitive and emotive matter. And where emotions run high, rationality and judgement may be clouded. I do not envy the work of MSF in dealing with such sensitivities and I hope the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act will strengthen the provisions to be made, and for fairness and objectivity to prevail, in ensuring the best interest of each child or young person in question. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought earlier, I support this Bill.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to applaud MSF for the thorough and thoughtful consultation process in drafting the Bill. MSF consulted over 300 stakeholders in the children and youth services sector and considered over 40 written responses during the public consultation.

Sir, I support the move towards a more rehabilitative regime by raising the maximum age of a "young person" from below 16 years to below 18 years. This is a step in the right direction.

I also applaud the extension of childcare leave to foster parents and urge parents to step forward to serve as foster parents. While our VWOs do their best in providing children who come through their doors with the best care possible, there is no substitute for a stable family environment.

Foster parents give children the stability, individual care and personal affection that they need and I hope more people will step forward to become foster parents.

Sir, I would like to cover two areas in my speech. I will focus on our children homes, which have been designated as a "place of safety" and our boys' home and girls' home. Unfortunately, I have some residents who have placed in a "place of safety", some of whom are only in Primary school.

My resident Allie, not her real name, has spent the last three years in a "place of safety". I have visited her there and I have to be honest that it was heartbreaking seeing her there. When I visited, a little boy was scaling the walls and the barb wires, trying to escape from the "place of safety". The VWO was doing their absolute best in very difficult circumstances.

I used take Allie out and she was a bubbly little girl, always running around and always with a big heart. I used to take her out with my daughter and I remember seeing her giving my daughter her black toy car. They say those with the least give the most and this is so true. Allie lived in a rental flat and did not have much but she gave a lot, not just material gifts. But she is someone who is so caring. I remember my daughter coughing once and almost instinctively, Allie would pat my daughter's back to make her feel better.

A few months after Allie was sent to a "place of safety", the Allie I knew vanished and was replaced with a quiet reserved girl who barely spoke a word. This was despite all the hard work the social workers and case manager had put in to help her. She changed completely and I could see why. She was taken away from her house, her siblings, her family and even her school. Everything she knew of and was used to, was removed from her.

I know we do this to protect her, to help her but we need to start questioning whether this works. Again, let me put on record that I commend the VWOs for doing a very admirable job of caring for the children with limited resources. At the same time, I believe we can and we have to do more for children like Allie and her siblings who just need a nurturing environment to grow and blossom.

In the spirit of protecting and rehabilitating our vulnerable children, I have the following questions and recommendations on helping VWOs who run "places of safety".

Sir, I believe one of the problems of the "places of safety" is the group setting with too few staff members. We place all the children together, all of whom are angry, sad, lost, frustrated, disappointed and I do not think it helps when they are placed together with insufficient support.

I understand that staff and resource constraints are a perpetual problem that VWOs have to grapple with. I had the same problem too when running my VWO. But in the best interest of our children, we should ensure that our VWOs are adequately staffed and have the resources they need to do their work. Can the Minister share what the current staff to children ratio is at the "place of safety"? What was it in the past? Has it improved over the years? Can the Minister share if MSF has studied the optimum staff to children ratio? Are there plans to further reduce the current ratio to ensure that each child has sufficient individualised care and attention? Does MSF have plans to provide more funding to VWOs running a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie and her two siblings were housed in "places of safety". They were sent there on the same day but were separated as the "place of safety" Allie was sent to, did not have a place for her two brothers.

While I understand the logistical constraints, it brings about acute stress for a child to be separated from siblings, especially when they have already lost their parents. Children in crisis are at their most vulnerable. They feel fear, confusion, abandonment, worry and sadness. It is essential that they receive quick support and care, in stable conditions they can feel comfortable in. Keeping Allie and her siblings together is the least we could do to create stability under such turbulent circumstances. This will help the VWOs running our "places of safety" as well.

In determining custody, and care and control of the children in divorce cases, the Court has stated that siblings should not be separated as far as possible. The Court considers this to be a factor in considering the welfare of the children. Will the Minister consider adopting the same policy position that siblings should not be separated where possible when making decisions about where children go when sent to a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie was also removed from her school as they wanted to send her to a school nearer to the "place of safety". Again, I understand the logistical constraints but I hope that we can allow a child to remain in his or her school after they have been sent to a "place of safety". I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for Allie to go to a new Primary school, try to make new friends, maybe even answer questions by her classmates on why she is there and I hope not but maybe even be laughed at.

I hope that MSF will consider this recommendation positively.

Next, inter-generational patterns of incarceration is a recognised phenomenon. Breaking this vicious cycle has been included as a goal in many efforts to support inmates and ex-offenders in Singapore. For example, addressing the inter-generational offending cycle is a key objective of Family Resource Centres, which support inmates' families.

This pattern of incarceration can start at an early age. Whilst children homes are intended to be safe places for the protection of vulnerable children, the roots of inter-generational incarceration may also begin here. We will not know until we have studied this problem. Can the Ministry share if it collects data on how many children who enter a "place of safety" later enter the boys' or girls' homes, and later on even prisons?

Sir, I started my speech with Allie's story and I wish to end this part of the speech with her story too. In putting Allie in a "place of safety", we took her away from her home, her siblings and everything that she was used to. We put her in a dormitory and expect her to be rehabilitated and helped in the process. Do we know whether doing this will lead to better outcomes for the children? I have seen how Allie has changed from her time at the "place of safety" and it breaks my heart. And I know this has not worked for her brother. While in a "place of safety", he was caught housebreaking and was sent to a boys' home.

I urge the Ministry to track and study the effectiveness of our "place of safety". We need data to measure the effectiveness of our programmes and ensure that our policies work and work well. We need to provide more help to the VWOs who run our "places of safety".

Lastly, the new section 68A allows persons-in-charge of homes for children and young persons to use mechanical restraints such as handcuffs. I understand this is intended to prevent children in the homes from escaping custody or inflicting bodily injury on themselves. This seems incompatible with our shift to a more rehabilitative approach. I understand that there might be circumstances where there is a genuine need to physically restrain the children. Our children's homes are already staffed by auxiliary officers. They are in a better position to step in, if necessary. There should be a clear distinction between the roles of the staff and auxiliary officers. Staff of the children's homes should be nurturing figures who are there to protect, not restraint the children. Imagine the psychology effect on children to see the staff using handcuffs on them and their friends. Can we maintain this separation by increasing the number of auxiliary officers if necessary so that the MSF staff do not have to take on this role?

Sir, it is often said that our children are our hope for the future. Children who are put in "places of safety" because of circumstances beyond their control have the same potential as any other child, and are no less deserving of care and attention. Let us make sure that we can give them the safe environment to break free of their unfortunate circumstances and to grow into their full potential. Let us make sure we help the children and also improve support and resources provided to the VWOs running our "places of safety".

Notwithstanding the above queries and recommendations, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. First off, on behalf of foster parents, I would like to thank MSF for allowing foster parents to benefit from childcare leave. This is something that many in the VWO space, including myself, have asked for. Second, over the years, we are aware of good progress that MSF and our VWOs have made to resource our home that serves our vulnerable children and youth.

As such, I would like MSF to comment on the current state of affairs. Can MSF share on the progress made? On average, how many of our children are currently based in the home-based care, such as Government and VWO-based orphanage, as well as and boys' and girls' homes? Have we seen a decrease over the years?

Most of us will agree that family-based care is a better model compared to home-based care for child and youth, as long as the foster or adopted parents have the means and the care and concern for them. Therefore, can MSF share whether we have been able to put more of these children and youth into family-based care situations such as through adopted and foster parents?

Thirdly, can MSF share on how more we can encourage more people to move forward as foster parents? I understand that there is a certain number of Singaporeans who would like to adopt children. Is there room for us to encourage them to consider fostering instead?

Next, is there a way for us to streamline the adoption process so as to reduce the cost of adoption? For the needy, there is of course the free legal aid. But adoption cost goes into thousands of dollars and this is a big cost to the sandwich class who are trying to adopt. And on the ground, I see some cases of grandparents from the sandwich class who want to adopt their grandchildren because the parents are not able or available to provide care. And the legal cost takes precious resources away from the grandparents.

Lastly, under CYPA, we have expanded on the definition of "emotional harm" to include "danger to oneself or to other persons", and "severely withdrawn, anxious or depressed". I welcome this move. In this context, there is one particular group of children and youth I would like to take about – those with extreme online addiction that has handicapped their ability to cope with life.

On the ground, I have seen a few of these cases who suffered such situations. Recently, I had a distressed parent coming in regarding this person's son who has suffered severe online addiction issues. The Secondary school youth has stopped going to school, has gone beyond parental control and has started exhibiting violent behaviour. The youth's school and parents were not able to persuade this youth to go back to school. Yet because this youth has not committed a crime, has not yet done something that is deemed as traditionally high risk, the mandatory intervention mechanism could not kick in. In this case, for this resident what I did was we brought in a volunteer who was a game developer and we tried to go in and persuade this person that if he likes to game, maybe he can a game developer one day and from then on we try to encourage him to go back to school. We are making some progress but I would like to see whether there is a systematic way where we can deal with this emerging issue.

Therefore, I hope that MSF and the compulsory education unit within MOE can work together to explore whether, in extreme and only extreme circumstances, can we put the children and our youth into mandatory therapy to deal with this online addiction? In all likelihood, the online addiction may be rooted or compounded by other behaviours, emotional or even mental issues. But a mandatory therapy will give us a chance to diagnose the situation and do the necessary course correction. One may argue that this may not constitute as severe self-harm in the traditional sense. But in this day and age, if a child or young person is not able even complete his basic education due to online addiction, in my view, I believe his or her future will be seriously compromised.

In conclusion, based on the feedback that I hear from various VWOs, this Bill is progressive and balanced. I would also like to thank MSF and the officers from the various VWOs for their tireless work to care for our vulnerable children and youth. With that, I support the Bill.

Sir, I rise in support of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill or the CYPA Bill. This is an important Bill because it sets the framework to better provide for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons, or CYPs, at risk in our midst.

I draw my suggestions from my co-labourers and volunteers, and my experience serving the CYPs in my constituency, district and in the special needs sector

I have three areas to the Ministry to consider further strengthening in order to reap better outcomes. First, to strengthen the coordination and integration of care for these children; second, to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons; and third, to strengthen the foster parents scheme.

First, strengthening the coordination and integration of care. Despite the immense many efforts by volunteers and agency staff, I found the outcomes for these children at risk and young persons at risk are often still less than ideal. It is definitely not for lack of heart and hands because I know how much each volunteer and staff care and put in. These partners on the ground have told me the following needs that, if better addressed, would surely improve the life outcomes for the young people they care for.

These needs are: one, the need for a safe environment where children feel secure; where they can learn and even rest without a constant heightened feeling of fear, anxiety and disruption. Such an environment can be found in both mainstream and special schools; but much depends on the kindness of the adults in charge. In the mainstream First Toa Payoh Primary School, there is a programme called Home @ School to provide such a safe environment for after-school. In the special school Pathlight where I volunteer, the OHANA after-school programme offers such a safe setting.

The second need is for the need for a constant and familiar adult supervision which can come in the form of teachers, youth workers, social workers or foster parents. One of the key challenges to track and address, for instance, is the turnover of such adult supervisors in the lives of these children and young persons causing further disruptions in their lives.

The third is the need for The need for better and constant access to needed community and healthcare including mental health care services.

And, fourthly, and and most important of all, the need for an integrated 'turnkey' solution properly coordinated by an appointed lead case manager – a solution integrator of sorts that all relevant parties helping the children and these young persons, the relevant parties, can turn to.

In many instances, the different help agencies and staff hardly have time to meet physically nor update regularly and communicate with each other until something happens in the life of these young persons. Each of them working within their own scope of duty and doing their very best – the youth worker taking care of the youth services for the young; the drug counsellor taking care of a parent; the social service officers delivering financial assistance. Without an appointed solution integrator to deliver more effective case management, I fear that the lives of the children and young persons will experience spiral downwards.

One young boy I know has already turned to smoking and dating at Primary 6 after losing both parents. Another young girl I know whose mother is in remand for drug offences became worse off when there was no effective hand-shake between her counsellors as she transited from Primary to Secondary school. One student with special needs I know very well is facing transition challenges and he is preparing to leave school after special school. As his foster mother ages and is having cancer, there is not enough confidence amongst all the parties working with him that there is a good transition and handshake. Hence, I feel there is a strong need to invest more resources to MSF to strengthen the coordination and integration of care.

The second need is this: to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have mixed feelings as I go through the Bill. On one hand, it is a comprehensive one covering many needed gaps. On the other hand, I cannot help but feel that in our efforts to protect the child, we are seeing things a lot through the lenses of the adult and not enough through the eyes of the children and young persons we are trying to help.

How do we incorporate the voice of these young people whose lives we attempt to shape for the better? In matters that impact them such as the change of school; admission into children’s homes or foster homes; in identifying their adult supervisors, are there measures installed to take into account the feelings and preferences of these young persons? How can the long and onerous process of gathering evidence, determination and implementation of Court orders for children caught in parental disputes, the process be improved so that their feelings are considered? In the new section 68(A), for instance, that authorises the use of "mechanical restraint" such as handcuffs or leg braces on a child or young person, how do we ensure that the least damage is done on them? Are affected children and young persons involved in the numerous decisions made for them incorporated in this Bill?

I therefore seek clarification from the Ministry on how the voice of these young persons can be sought and strengthened in this Bill.

Third, on strengthening the foster parents scheme. I am pleased that foster parents are officially added in this Bill as key partners to support children and young persons in need of protection and rehabilitation. Foster parents, if properly selected and trained, provide a more natural and desirable setting than a group home for these young people. I have studied the Ministry’s Fostering Scheme and found it to be useful and structured. I have a few suggestions for Ministry to consider to strengthen this important scheme.

One, to cast the net wider to attract more suitable and interested foster parent candidates; two, to involve them more in the case management process so as to better integrate the care across schools, foster home and other areas; and three, to put in more resources to train, to skill and support the foster parents so that they can more effectively care for their charges – more so if the children have special needs that require specialised knowledge.

In conclusion, Sir, the CYPA is an important Bill and is overdue. In its implementation, there is a need to especially strengthen the coordination and integration of care to ensure the children and young persons receive the better outcomes they deserve. The mission of ensuring a better life for them, however, cannot be left only to the Government and the social service agencies. Those of us in the rest of society, whether as neighbours or relatives or volunteers, must join in the efforts to support this effort. Sir, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the move to extend the legal protection to our young under the Bill before the House. This is especially with regard to raising the age limit for protection from abuse or neglect from the age of below 16 years to below 18 years. Those who are within this age group can be very impressionistic and be quite easily swayed by adults. Sometimes, they are unable to comprehend the wider implications of their decisions which may result in their underestimating the risks of their actions or behaviours. And, this group of our young can be exploited by criminals and we have also seen how girls and boys alike have fallen victim to sexual predators.

With the extension of the age to below 18 years, could the Minister share with the House how many more welfare officers or probation officers would be required to cope with the rise in the number of cases to handle such cases? What is the current ratio of officers to youth at risk? Is there an ideal ratio from the professional standpoint?

Also, under the Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO), a Court order may authorise a person other than the child's natural parents or guardians to care and make decisions for the child. As the Order will provide the care-givers with powers to make decisions for the child which would otherwise require parental consent, who are the care-givers that the Ministry has on its list, and would this be expanded further?  Would the passage of this Bill require a new team to be set up within the Ministry to handle such cases? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another point that I wish to raise is whether the Ministry would ensure that the person under the caregiver would not be coerced, for instance, to convert to a particular religion. This is important especially in multi-racial Singapore, because there may be caregivers who are over-enthusiastic in trying to promote their own religion, and perhaps this is done with good intentions, but they should respect the fact that the child should be allowed to make his/her own decision after reaching 18 years of age.

Having spoken to people in the relevant field of work like welfare, I also note that differing values and certain biases are among some factors that could lead to unfair implementation of the ECPO or the possibility that it will not be used.

My other concern is that we could compromise the structure and integrity of families by being over-zealous in interfering with the discipline and care of children.

What does taking an 18-year-old away from his/her parents say about or have a negative impact on their worth as parents?

What does it tell the youth about his relationship with his parents? Can he still respect his parents after that? Are we sowing the seeds of rebellion against his parents in the future?

Or is there something about the parent-child relationship that should be protected regardless how bad the parents are at parenting? At the very least, we should have some mechanism or provision to show that we value the rights of the parents. We do not want to cultivate a parenting culture that is afraid to discipline their children when the need arises. I hope that we can focus more on counselling both children and parents, and that taking away parents’ rights should only be the last resort, or if their actions endanger the child's life or has lasting severe impact on the child. I would believe that in such cases, the parent would be facing criminal charges.

I would like to know how the ECPO would be applied, the grounds for applying ECPO, the reasons the judge will consider in granting ECPO, and most importantly how would the parents challenge such an application in Court? Are they properly represented in Court? Are they aware that their rights as a parent are being taken away in their case? How might they mount a defence against the implied charge that they are incompetent and incapable parents? So, all these things I said are meant to protect parents for certain cases in the future under this Bill.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, in English, please. I would also like to propose that the Probation Service provide a summary of the demographics of anonymised potential over-aged probationers that the ECPO would have applied in the last 12 to 24 months. Areas of interest would include household income, family structure, primary care-giver, ethnicity and so on, so that we have greater insights on possible factors that cause the issues between parent and child, and we can then tackle the issues more appropriately.

Can the Minister share what is in place in the system to ensure that there is no clash of cultural values?

While thus far we are addressing the issue of protection, I hope attention would also be given to counselling these young persons to help them cope emotionally with their circumstances when the Ministry intervenes. Often, the circumstances under which the young are facing, especially in the case of parents who are estranged and divorced, can be a trauma.

Next, I would like to touch on the care-givers for the young, especially when they are under the charge of grandparents who may not only be aged but may not have a good grasp of the English language to be able to give appropriate guidance to those under their charge. So, when it comes to making decisions especially on educational matters, the aged grandparents may not be able to make that value-added decision. Additionally, the grandparents may also not have the financial resources to support the young to pay for the courses that they think best suit the child. How would the Ministry assist such care-givers in the given circumstances, from giving guidance to financial support?

I am pleased to note that childcare leave would now be extended to foster parents, as after all this group of people are playing the similar role as the parents. However, may I ask if the Ministry would consider extending to this group the income tax and other benefits that are currently available to the parents? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, children and young persons (CYPs) are among the most vulnerable in our society. Although 17- or 18-year olds are likely to possess the intellectual capabilities of making informed decisions, this does not mean that they possess the same level of emotional and psychological maturity as an adult to make those decisions. And I am sure that there are many parents of such young people who would agree with me. As such, the question is whether or not 17- and 18-year-olds should be treated as an adult when decisions need to be made regarding their safety and welfare are highly pertinent ones.

Indeed, research has shown that while youths and adults may possess almost the same level of intellectual capabilities, youths are, however, less able than adults to make mature decisions that may have important outcomes in their lives.

In this regard, the amendments to the Act that extend coverage to those under 18 is a positive step and will ensure that a greater number of youth are supported and protected.

One aspect of increasing the age of protection would be the need to extend a duty of care to a greater number of older youths who are sent to Government homes for various reasons. Physically, these older youths may be of the same physical build of adults but they will likely lack the emotional and mental maturity of adults.

I would thus like to ask what are some of the measures that the Government could put in place to ensure that the mental and emotional well-being of these older youths are taken care of?

Also, would Government-run homes have the necessary incident management SOPs to manage older youths, as they would likely require a different set of management procedures when they get into incidents as compared to younger children who might get into similar incidents during their stay at the homes.

Emotional and psychological abuse have long-term impact on individuals and the extent of the harm caused by psychological and emotional trauma is arguably more significant and last longer than physical abuse. One could recover from the pain of physical abuse yet carries the scar of psychological and emotional trauma for their entire lives.

It is heartening to know that the bill now provides more comprehensive coverage to protect victims of emotional and psychological abuse. Changing the term from "injury" to "harm" may seem lexically trivial but it underlies an important shift in how interventions and care could be given.

As compared to an "injury" which requires perhaps professional assessments and objective evidence to substantiate that victims have suffered from hurt or trauma, "harm" seems to suggest a lower establishment threshold before interventions can be implemented.

This begets the question of who will determine whether or not children are at risk of harm and to what extent "harm" must be proven before interventions can be implemented? With the potential expansion in the level of intervention that needs to be implemented, does the Government possess sufficient resources to ensure that all victims of emotional and psychological harm are thus provided with sufficient level of support to avert the long-term impact of such harm?

I would like to touch on resources and staffing now.

With the increased need to provide step-up care to a larger number of children and youths, and the demand for greater resources to support more victims of abuse and harm, it seems likely that the Government will need to increase staff resources to ensure that there are sufficient number of professionals who can provide interventions to children.

I would thus like to urge the Government to concurrently enhance the capabilities of staff who are already working in Government-run homes for children and strengthen the capabilities of those homes to provide holistic care. As such, could the Government consider reviewing the knowledge, skills, abilities and other competencies of professionals who are working with children, enhance the career prospects of the profession and perhaps even reconsider the remuneration and benefits of these professionals to attract a larger number – especially potential mid-career switchers – to enter this field.

Mr Deputy Speaker, working with children and at-risk youth is meaningful and important work because it impacts the next generation of Singaporeans. We need to ensure that we are able to entice and retain and more people with the right passion to enter this field. The Government could also perhaps consider tapping on those looking for re-employment – perhaps full-time parents or even grandparents who are looking to return to the workforce. If these happen to be parents or grandparents of children and youths of a similar age, they could likely have the aptitude and skill-sets to successfully work with these children and at-risk youths.

And finally, the topic of foster parents, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that foster parents provide children and at-risk youths a second lease of life and another shot at life that their biological families and parents may not necessarily be able to provide. I am glad that the Bill now also considers them as "parents" and recognises that they provide an important duty of care to the children they foster by according them childcare leave. This gesture is a significant one, and I am sure that it will be well-received as the childcare leave will accord them with greater flexibility at work for them to provide the necessary care for the children they are fostering.

Emotional bonds between foster parents and the fostered child will inevitably grow over time. I would imagine that it would be emotionally painful for a set of foster parents to be separated from their foster child once the child reaches a certain age or when the foster child leaves their foster parents to go back to his or her biological homes. I would thus like to know if there is the option for foster parents to adopt their fostered child, provided both parties are open to the arrangement? And are such arrangements typically common? Also, would the biological parents' consent be needed, even if they have shown themselves to be unfit parents through their actions and behaviour which sometimes have been deemed as criminal?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech with quotes from John Baptist de la Salle, who is often acknowledged as the patron saint of teachers. In writing to his fellow Brothers and Educators, de la Salle said: "To deal with young people very harshly is to forego all hope of bringing about any good" and, "have much care and affection for the young people entrusted to you."

I believe that it is imperative that we should always display this deep affective care in dealing with our children and young persons, especially those who are at risk. And we should be helping them not only deal with whatever immediate dangers and challenges they are facing in their lives, but also with the ultimate aim of helping them in the wider context of being able to reintegrate into society. I thus end my speech in firm support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, all Singaporean sons and daughters should have equal opportunities to succeed, regardless of their origins and birth. It should be an inalienable right of every Singaporean baby. Yet for some children, they are not exactly equals because of family circumstances. For example, children under the care of foster parents or unwed mothers.

Singapore needs to keep reviewing its policies to support people and families in different circumstances. Over the years, we have made headway in supporting them. Now, all mothers are given the 16-week maternity leave, as well as a Child Development Account. These enhancements show that the government is prepared to make changes to support our young families, regardless of the constitution of their families.

The move to support foster parents is another positive evolution. Foster parents are important in the network of support for vulnerable children. They are no different from the children's natural parents in having to balance their careers and families. The extension of childcare leave benefits to foster parents to help them care for their foster children who may have been abused, neglected or abandoned recognizes the contribution of foster parents and allows for time and flexibility to care for foster children.

I will like to seek clarification on another group of care-givers involved in child-caring, which are the kin-carers. It is not uncommon for the next of kin to take care of children neglected or abandoned by parents, or if there is a sudden bereavement. Will these kin-carers also be covered in the Bill?

The Labour Movement has been a strong advocate to improve support given to families. We are happy that the Government has responded to the call over the years and have now progressed to the foster parents.

As we note this important progression in this Bill, let us also not forget to continue to work towards helping our unwed mothers. In 2013, the Labour Movement advocated for the Government to accord the same level of benefits that married mothers get to unwed mothers. In 2017, the Government announced that unwed mothers would be entitled to the same maternity leave, childcare and infant leave as married parents, and enjoy CDCA benefits. Yet, more can be done for them.

First, we should revisit allowing unwed mothers to purchase HDB flats before 35 years old. Housing is a practical issue that families must deal with. Currently, unwed mothers can only buy their own HDB flats if they are 35 years old and above, under the Singles Scheme. This means that unwed mothers will have to rent a place if they are not living with their family or relatives, increasing the cost burden on such families on top of the cost of raising children. Can we re-consider this fundamental need for lodging as they are often younger, and allow concession in consideration of their plight and circumstances, to purchase a flat even before the mother turns 35?

Second, there should be tax relief for unwed mothers and foster parents – such as Working Mother's Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Today, unwed mothers are not eligible for such relief. Since they also work productively, providing to society, there seem to be reasons for them to be included for such reliefs as well.

We must protect our children – they need to be given opportunities to learn to express themselves, to make responsible decisions, and to participate in processes that affect their well-being and their future, according to their age and maturity. The extension of the protection from 16 to 18 years old and greater support to care-givers are positive steps to creating a kinder and more supportive environment. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for acknowledging difficult but meaningful work of MSF's Child Protective Services and our social service agencies partners. Let me now respond to the Members' questions and suggestions, and please forgive me if I cannot respond to every single one of them.

First, I note that several Members of Parliament were concerned that the power to protect abused or neglected children could overly interfere with how parents legitimately discipline and raise their children. Mr Christopher de Souza touched on the definition of "emotional harm". While the concepts of emotional harm, emotional abuse or psychological abuse may seem broad or subjective, what we have sought to do in the Bill is to give as much clarity as we can on what constitutes such harm or abuse, by providing some specific circumstances and then, examples.

For example, Mr de Souza asked what infantilisation is, in one of the examples. This occurs when a parent or guardian deliberately treats a child as being much younger than a child's actual age and in a way that is not developmentally appropriate for the child. For example, say, a child in upper Primary school being made to wear diapers every day.

He also asked about the example of being confined in a small space. By that, we refer to a space that is not conducive for the child's development and is beyond socially-accepted boundaries for punishment. For example, locking a child in a cage, the toilet, the store room as a form of punishment.

I wish to assure Members that we do not intend to diminish parental authority. We do not intend to unduly intervene with parents' rights to discipline their children. And we do not intend to overly intrude into the private lives of families. The vast majority of parents are responsible and do their best to care for and raise their children. Within the private lives of families, within the bounds of parental authority, there is a wide berth or space for parents to nurture, raise and discipline their children. The common adage goes: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

But unfortunately, a small number struggle to parent responsibly, for whatever reason. And when parenting or so called discipline crosses the line and becomes excessively harsh or abusive, whether physically or emotionally, we may have to intervene to protect the children. I gave a couple of examples yesterday.

Mr Louis Ng, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about the impact of removing children from families, and asked whether MSF could provide a sense of continuity and familiarity to children who have been placed in out-of-home care.

Let me explain to Members how MSF handles reports of child abuse or neglect. When we receive reports that raise concerns about the safety of children, we first undertake a comprehensive social investigation. Often, our social services move in, rather immediately, the Child Protective Service. We look at factors such as the context, the intentions, the severity, the persistence of the abuse or neglect, the likelihood of future harm to the child and the strengths and as well as the needs of the families. In doing so, we are aided by evidence-based assessment tools.

Our Child Protection Officers are sensitive to the emotions that may overwhelm the child and are trained to apply trauma-informed practices when interviewing children. We also consult professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists when needed. The Police may concurrently investigate if a criminal offence is reported or suspected to have taken place.

Our efforts focus on keeping the family intact with safety plans in place. But when the home environment is unsafe for the child, MSF may have to remove the child from his parents as a last resort. We then work quickly to ensure that the child can be placed in a safe place, whether under the care of his grandparents or other relatives such as aunts and uncles, foster parents or a children's home. When the child is in out-of-home care, these care-givers who may be extended family members will be able to make decisions for the child in a timely manner.

MSF will also work closely with professionals in the child's network of support, such as school counsellors and teachers, to review the child's progress from time to time. When needed, we may consult independent panels such as the Committee on Fostering which comprises a range of professionals from the relevant fields such as education, child psychology and psychiatry. We will facilitate constant contact between the child and family members where possible to maintain that important relationship.

Family reunification, after all, remains the long-term goal for many children in state care.

The Court may also order the parents to attend counselling or other programmes to ensure the well-being and safety of the child and also make orders to assist the child in recovery.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if there is financial support for parents to comply with the orders made by the Courts. We will ensure that no family will be denied services because they are unable to afford them. For example, MSF does not charge for the services we provide to the families. Our appointed social service agencies also have arrangements to keep their services well accessible to families, regardless of their socio-economic status.

Now, I will share the policy considerations behind how we place children in out-of-home care. Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Denise Phua, for example, spoke about fostering. Family-based care is preferred as a supportive family environment will help children who have been abused or neglected. However, 47% of children in out-of-home care are looked after by foster families today. Our goal is to try to place two-thirds of such children in family-based care. So, we are at 47%. Still some way to go.

The reality is that we do not have enough foster parents for every child in need of protection. As a foster parent, you have to open not only your hearts, but also open your homes. And the care is 24/7. This challenge is especially so for older children. There are also children with more complex needs whose interests are better served in a residential care setting.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong spoke about sibling groups in out-of-home care – sometimes, a pair; sometimes, many more. MSF strives to place siblings together as far as possible. Doing so preserves their relationships and allows them to support each other through difficult times.

And yet, sometimes, we have to split them up. We have to consider the circumstances of each case, manage within the realities of our out-of-home care landscape. The age, gender as well as the care and intervention needs of each child, availability of foster families especially those who can care for more than one foster child and the resident profiles in children's homes, are taken into account when deciding a child's placement. Even though siblings may not stay together in some instances, MSF and our partners will facilitate contact between the siblings as well as with their natural parents.

Mr Louis Ng also spoke about school arrangements. MSF is guided by what is in the child's best interest. Where the expected duration of the out-of-home care placement is short or the child will soon be taking a national exam, or the current school provides good support for his needs, we prefer to let the child continue in his current school. If a change of school is in the interest of the child, MSF will work with the schools, the foster families or children's homes to help with the transitions.

In the case of Allie referred to in Mr Louis Ng's speech, the change of school was done for her benefit. The distance between the home and the original school meant very long and tiring daily commutes for her, and that showed when she returned to the home. My colleagues have recently checked on Allie and I am told that she is progressing well in her placement, despite initial adjustment difficulties. And I think we understand that she was caught between a rock and a hard place. Her family situation was none the better and that is why she had to be removed in the very first place. I thank Mr Ng for his concern. We will monitor the girl's situation and work towards reunifying her with her family.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to questions relating to the Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO). Mr Saktiandi Supaat was concerned that it may undermine the rights of parents – quite similar to the first set of questions that I addressed.

When a child has been placed in out-of-home care, we seek to return the child back to his family as soon as possible. Caveat: if it is safe to do so. Hence, before applying for an ECPO, MSF and our community partners would already have sought to reunify the family. This includes providing counselling and psychotherapy, identifying responsible adults in the family to anchor possible safety plans and preparing the relevant touch-points in the community such as schools and pre-schools to play a part in those plans.

In making an ECPO, the Court must be satisfied that the child has stayed in out-of-home care for at least 12 months in the case of a child who is below three, or at least 24 months for a child aged three and above; the parents are not fit to provide care for the child; and it is not appropriate to return the child to the care and custody of any of his parents. And I gave some examples yesterday.

Let me explain to Mr Sakianti Suppat that the ECPO does not allow MSF nor the care-givers to make decisions relating to religion on behalf of the child. Our practice is to try to place children with foster families of the same race and religion as far as possible, or if that is not possible due to fostering constraints, we will consult and seek parental consent. Our children’s homes operate on a secular basis, while providing for the religious needs of the child, including other requirements such as dietary needs.

Mr Darryl David and Mr Henry Kwek asked about fostering and adoption. While this Bill in itself does not touch on adoption, foster parents may apply to adopt the children under the Adoption of Children Act. Adoption of a fostered child may be considered if it is in the welfare of the child. This is if the natural parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child, or will significantly compromise the safety and well-being of the child. This is a high threshold. We will take your feedback on facilitating the adoption of children in state care into consideration when we review our laws and processes on that Act.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Anthea Ong asked whether income tax benefits can be given to foster families. Foster parents face care-giving challenges, similar to natural parents. The childcare benefits that we are proposing to extend, if this Parliament endorses it, will give them more time to spend with their foster children. Financially, foster parents receive fostering allowances to defray expenses for the children. The quantum is higher if the children have special needs. They also get childcare and medical subsidies to assist them.

Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Desmond Choo also spoke about supporting other care-givers in caring for abused or neglected children. For some children whose parents are unable to provide a safe living environment, MSF may appoint relatives to provide care, similar to how natural parents care for the child. And the amended legislation will, similarly, extend childcare leave to such appointed care-givers to support them in their care-giving roles.

Some Members spoke about amendments relating to the rehabilitation of youth offenders. Let me outline our approach to youth justice and rehabilitation to set the context for the amendments that I had described yesterday afternoon.

Youth justice in Singapore is premised on gradated intervention. Our approach is to try to divert youth offenders, including those between the ages of 16 and 18 years, away from the Court wherever possible. Youth offenders who are not diverted are assessed whether they are suitable for probation. Probation focuses on community-based rehabilitation and the Court may order accompanying conditions depending on the needs of the youths. This means that youths who are required to reside in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres (JRCs) generally have higher risk behaviours, more complex needs or a weak family environment that does not support rehabilitation. And that tends to manifest in their behaviour and in their interactions with other people.

Earlier, I had explained that we need to strike a good balance between helping youth offenders rehabilitate and reintegrate into society on the one hand, and ensuring the safety of residents and staff in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres, and of the public in general.

So, this brings me to my next point, on how we seek to achieve such a balance.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the treatment of youth suspects and youth offenders, by law enforcement officers, MSF and the Courts. Ms Lim correctly pointed out that there are existing laws and protocols that law enforcement officers must adhere to when handling youth suspects, such as not detaining arrested persons for more than 48 hours. Our amendment to section 30 of the Act inserts this deadline explicitly into the CYPA itself, in line with section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) so that there is no ambiguity in how law enforcement officers handle arrested youth suspects.

The law enforcement officers, such as the Police, are trained to handle youth suspects. Where feasible, the Police try to expedite the investigation of cases involving youth suspects. Police protocols also involve the activation of Appropriate Adults to support the emotional needs of young suspects and to ensure close coordination between law enforcement and other agencies, such as schools and MSF, for appropriate follow-up.

The Appropriate Adults and the Police are trained to look out for signs of distress by youths during the interview and can assess if the youth is in a suitable condition or state to be interviewed or not. The Police officer can also decide to discontinue the interview and reschedule the interview when the young suspect is in a more stable emotional state. After investigations, a decision on whether to release and divert the youth, or proceed with a charge, is made.

We also recognise that some youths, especially older youths, may commit serious offences and can be repeat offenders. This is where the Public Prosecutor as well as the Youth Court have the discretion to charge the offender in either the Youth Court or a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, such as the State Courts. Ms Lim asked yesterday whether it is a case of discretion or whether it is mandatory when a youth offender has committed or is suspected of having committed serious offences in the Schedule or is a repeat offender, whether or not there is a discretion, the answer is yes.

In terms of protecting the identity of young offenders, the State Courts continue to be able to issue gag orders to ensure the identity of the youth is not revealed by the media.

The Youth Court, in making any order, must consider the needs of each youth and their risks of re-offending in future. The Youth Court typically calls for a pre-sentencing report to determine if the youth is suitable for probation or otherwise and weighs several factors, such as whether the youth has prior offences, the youth's behaviour in school, his relationship with peers, family circumstances, the availability and strength of familial and community support, are also important. Where there is adequate supervision, appropriate discipline and consistent parenting are also considered. After taking into consideration the risks and the needs of the youth, the Court can order a youth offender to undergo rehabilitation under a probation order or in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre.

In considering whether a youth requires reformative training, the Court would call for a suitability report to determine whether the youth's physical and mental condition is suitable for a Reformative Training Centre (RTC). The Youth Court would also consider whether the youth has demonstrated aggressive or violent behaviour, such as when the youth was remanded at the MSF Youth Homes. The youth may be assessed to have such a high risk of aggressive behaviour that it may not be safe for the youth to be detained in the JRC, especially if it may affect the safety or disrupt the rehabilitation of other youths in the JRC.

The assessment of individual risk levels and the needs of the youth determines the regime and environment that best support his rehabilitation. Hence, in incidents involving more than one youth, it may be possible that the Youth Court may grant different orders as is needed for their rehabilitation. At the same time, parity in sentencing is vital to preserve and protect public confidence in the way justice is administered.

Sir, I cited yesterday the case of a 15-year-old resident with unruly and aggressive behaviour. While he was at the Singapore Boys’ Home, he repeatedly threatened youth guidance officers and intimidated other residents. He is burly, well-built at about 1.83 m tall – a head taller than I am – and, in one instance, he held his dormitory mate by the neck and lifted him off the ground, choking him. Fortunately, staff witnessed it and intervened immediately. And this is one out of many scenarios where our officers find it essential to be able to deploy the use of restraints and other measures quickly to safeguard other residents.

Let me share another example. Members may be aware that a serious incident took place at the Singapore Boys' Home last year. Seven residents physically assaulted an Auxiliary Police Officer and two MSF officers, inflicting serious injuries. The Auxiliary Police Officer suffered serious eye injury, while the two MSF officers suffered head injuries. Though all three officers are back at their workplace, we must reduce the risks of such incidents repeating. The Homes are places of rehabilitation, yes. I have described the complexity and the behaviours of the youths who are residing in the JRC. Because it is a rehabilitative environment, we have many youth guidance officers, psychologists, counsellors and therapists who need a safe environment to provide that rehabilitative support. Other youths there also need to be assured of their safety.

Mr Darryl David asked, therefore, whether we have the capability to handle older and bigger-built youths and much taller youths in MSF's Youth Homes. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Anthea Ong asked about the necessity of mechanical restraints. I think almost all Members raised this issue and I can understand your concern. Like I mentioned yesterday, they will not be used as a punitive measure. But Members will appreciate that there are, indeed, real-life situations where the use of such restraints is necessary to prevent escalation, escape or harm.

Let me assure Members that the MSF Youth Homes adopt a range of approaches to de-escalate and manage the youths of aggressive or violent behaviour when encountered. Youth home staff will attempt to verbally de-escalate tensions, calm down any aggressive residents and persuade them to cease aggresive behaviours. When suitable, the Youth Homes also use therapy or padded rooms to help calm agitated residents down. If a youth remains aggressive or the situation escalates despite our efforts to calm him down, MSF Youth Home staff will first verbally issue a warning. And if the youth persists, MSF staff will apply de-escalation techniques based on their training on management of actual or potential aggression, or MAPA, as mentioned by Ms Anthea Ong yesterday.

Only when absolutely necessary will our officers use restraints to manage the resident so as to minimise risks of injury to other residents or staff. As far as possible, it would be the Auxiliary Police Officers who will do so. But Mr Louis Ng will understand that, in some instances, given the situation, our officers may also have to respond to take appropriate action for the safety of residents and staff. MSF will put in place stringent procedures and processes in the use of restraints. This includes recording each use of the restraint and removing the restraint once the need has passed.

Rehabilitation of the youth is important. So, after the restraints are removed, an MSF officer will help the resident to process his feelings and, where necessary, a multi-disciplinary team comprising the case worker, psychologist and psychiatrist will also support the youth through this process.

Our aim is to provide a safe and secure environment for all residents and staff in MSF Youth Homes, to facilitate rehabilitation.

Some Members asked about the management of youths of different ages. When we raised the age limit to below 18 at point of admission, some youths may remain in our care or custody till they are about 21 years old. There are various considerations in how we group the residents in the MSF Youth Homes. Their risks and needs are considered. Given the differing levels of maturity, the young ones are generally housed separately from the older youths at the MSF Youth Homes.

As the older youths are at a different stage of development from the existing younger youths, our officers need to have adequate training and experience to address the different risks and needs of older youths. This includes being able to supervise and guide the youths in day-to-day activities, such as attending educational classes or playing sports in a group setting. This helps the youths to gain soft skills, which are important in interacting with youths of different ages. Ultimately, our intent is to facilitate their rehabilitation and reintegration with family and society at large.

Many Members like Mr Desmond Choo spoke about providing support for families. In particular, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Anthea Ong and Ms Denise Phua spoke about providing early support for at-risk families, before their situations worsen. And I fully agree. Vulnerable individuals and families sometimes face complex challenges and require the support of multiple agencies and community organisations to help them regain stability. MSF has been working with our partners to transform our social services, integrate service delivery and strengthen last-mile support. The objective is to provide more comprehensive, convenient and coordinated support for these families.

We have also made significant investment in the early childhood sector to give every child a good start in life and to support families with young children. The KidSTART programme provides support for child development, coordinates and strengthens services for families where needed and monitors the developmental progress of children from birth. Since KidSTART was piloted in July 2016, 1,000 children from low-income families have benefited. We will be expanding KidSTART further – as the Prime Minister had announced at the National Day Rally – to reach another 5,000 children from low-income households over the next three years.

MSF has also worked with schools to conduct parenting programmes. We have reached out to 292 schools to make internationally-recognised evidence-based parenting programmes available. These will support parents to become more confident in their parenting, reduce parental stress and better manage negative behaviour in their children.

Mr Henry Kwek and Prof Lim Sun Sun spoke about digital wellness and online addiction. There are programmes in the community for families facing such challenges, such as the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS) which provides treatment for persons with gaming or Internet addictions. Community agencies, such as Fei Yue Community Service and TOUCH Community Services, conduct programmes to support children, including teaching them coping strategies to manage their gaming activity.

Statutory intervention and legal enforcement should not be the only or "go-to" approach. As far as possible, our families should be supported by the community. Where a parent ultimately decides to apply to the Youth Court for a Family Guidance Order (FGO), the Court can mandate that the child and/or the parents can undergo counselling or any other programme or treatment to protect his well-being.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether families and children have the right to be heard before the Youth Court. She also wanted to know what options are available for children and families who are unable to engage lawyers. I would like to first emphasise our starting point that legal recourse ought to be a last resort. This is why we have programmes that divert youth offenders away from the Court system and why we are requiring families to attend the mandatory family programme before applying for a Family Guidance Order. But for cases that are before the Court, it is important to keep the law accessible and easy to understand. There are provisions in the Act and in the Bill to ensure that child's or his parents' voices are heard during proceedings.

Section 42 of the CYPA also provides that where a child is brought before the Youth Court, it is the Court’s duty to explain the substance of the offence to the child in language suitable for his age and understanding. Moreover, for child protection cases, MSF case workers are guided by the best interests of the child. Similarly, for FGO cases, a counsellor will work with the family through their difficulties. These professionals help to safeguard the interests of the child and the family.

Exceptionally, if the presence of lawyers is necessary, there are avenues of assistance available for those who are not able to afford lawyers. They may seek assistance from the Law Society's Pro Bono Services or legal clinics run by various community, religious and social service agencies. Criminal legal aid is also available through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) for children and young persons who are accused of a crime or an offence.

The Community Justice Centre (CJC) also assists litigants in person. For example, CJC runs a scheme when an assigned Court Friend provides practical and emotional support and the Court Friend may provide information on Court procedures and explain the Judge's instructions to the child or parent.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, community partners will play a bigger role in caring for our children under our regime. We consulted many stakeholders, including our social service agencies, members of the Youth Advisory Group and so on. They have told us that they need to build capacity and capabilities to manage both a higher number of children, as well as older youths with differing needs and risks.

MSF will ensure that all our community partners and agencies are given sufficient time to work through their plans and processes, so that we are collectively ready to implement these changes.

Members such as Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Darryl David also spoke about our ability to manage the larger number of children who will be covered under the Act. I assure Members that we have been planning and working on building capacity and capability to enable us to be ready to implement these changes. The preparations are on-going, but will take time and additional resources. Our community partners have emphasised the need to prepare and to be ready.

This is why we are staggering the implementation of the Bill.

We intend to bring into force the amendments to expand care and protection for children first, next year. While we seek to amend the CYPA at this Sitting to raise the age limit of older youths to be tried by the Youth Court, time will be needed to bring these specific amendments into force as various things need to be put into place first. I have explained that it takes time to strengthen the safety and security within MSF's Youth Homes. We need to make changes to infrastructure to enable age-appropriate rehabilitation and expand the existing academic and vocational curriculum that is provided. We also need to strike the right balance, to provide an environment that is safe for residents and staff and conducive for rehabilitation in the Youth Homes.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the data and research that informs us about our programmes and our policies. In the past five years, we have seen more child abuse and neglect cases being reported and investigated. This is in part because of our efforts to increase greater awareness, such as the Break the Silence campaign, and people have been able to identify cases more easily, to speak out against violence; and better detection of child abuse cases using screening tools and processes. For example, we developed the Child Abuse Reporting Guide (CARG) that is used by our partners such as childcare centres, schools and medical professionals, to guide them on what to look out for, in detecting child abuse.

The overall recidivism rates of our youth offenders have remained stable. We have a number of published research papers, covering topics such as family profiles of maltreated children and the predictors of re-entry into the child protection system in Singapore; impact of childhood maltreatment on recidivism in youth offenders; family characteristics linked to youth offenders in Singapore; evaluation of programmes such as Functional Family Therapy for youth probationers and Violence Prevention Programme for youth offenders. These are publicly available.

The findings inform the work that we do, for example through the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism (NCPR), that I co-chair with Minister Josephine Teo from MHA. We will continue to track data and outcomes in relation to abuse, neglect and offending.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me round up by outlining what this Bill means for our children, families and stakeholders.

First, for abused or neglected children, the Bill safeguards their interests by expanding the coverage of the Act to older children. It also enhances our intervention in emotional or psychological abuse cases and provides stable out-of-home care arrangements.

Second, for youths who have committed offences, the Bill would help them ease back into their families and society, and better support them to avoid further offending.

Third, for families that require guidance in parenting, the Bill would help strengthen family relationships and better guide parenting of children.

Finally, for stakeholders in community, the Bill also strengthens how we partner them to work with vulnerable children.

Sir, the Bill seeks to provide better outcomes for children and break the cycle of abuse, neglect and offending. At the same time, our work with vulnerable children cannot be accomplished by legislation alone. Only when we work collectively as a community can we help our vulnerable children overcome their difficult circumstances to have the best shot in life.

I would like to thank Members for their strong support for this Bill and I would also like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our Child Protection Officers, our youth guidance officers, our Home staff and Auxiliary Police Officers, our probation officers, our therapists, psychologists, counsellors, social workers and healthcare workers, our child protection specialist centres, family violence specialist centres, divorce support specialist agencies, family service centres, social work professionals, our youth work integrated service providers, our foster families, our Board of Visitors, our advisors of the Youth Court, our youth advisory groups, our community partners and our volunteers – for the hard work and dedication behind the scenes, often under tremendous pressure, to protect our children, our future and to guide vulnerable families.

I also appreciate the policy officers and the legal officers for working hard on this Bill. This Bill, if Parliament supports, is a result of their hard work and their recommendations borne out of many years of experience. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]

Could I just check with Minister, what is the current staff-to-children ratio is at our children's home? And whether we know what an optimum level is? And if we have a target that we are trying to reach right now?

Secondly, the Minister did say that there is some public data, but I just wanted to confirm that we have data on how many children enter our children's home and then we follow them along the journey and how many actually end up in the boys' home and how many further along the line end up being incarcerated. Not from boys' home where there is a criminal element but from the children's home where sometimes again like Alice's case, where she had to be removed from her family for very good reasons and enter the children's home. How many of those children end up in our boys' home and then end up further along the line incarcerated?

Lastly, I just want to confirm that we are increasing funding support for the VWOs who run our "place of safety".

In terms of the staff ratio, I do not have the figure. If the Member files a Parliamentary Question, I will see whether the data is available – MSF partners our social service agencies who step forward to run these homes. As the Member would be aware, our focus is less on institutional care, with a greater focus on family-based care, which is foster care.

Nevertheless, there still is a need for institutional care in the form of voluntarily children's homes. And as I said, it is a partnership between MSF as well as the social service agencies. That said, MSF provides funding and support to the staff of the social service agencies that run these homes. We continue to work with them on what is the optimal arrangements to ensure that the needs of every child there is adequately provided for.

In terms of data, we do know the number of children that are in the various homes, because this is the out-of-home care landscape. In some of these homes, youth offenders may also be required to reside. As for their trajectory and recidivism, we do also look at these figures, but whether we have all the data that the Member asked for, this is something that I need to look at.

As for continued support, I think the Member can be assured that we will continue to support our children's homes, to ensure that they provide the best possible support for these children.

Can I just check with the Minister: he mentioned earlier that the older children and the younger children are actually separated, from the point of safety. Just wondering also, do we separate children that are in the homes because they have been abused and neglected from the children who are in the homes because of offending behaviours? Or are they actually right now mixed in the homes together?

The Member is right, that as far as possible, we try to separate children based on age, so the younger children are in certain blocks and the older children in other blocks. As for whether there is segregation of children who are there for care and protection or there because of youth offending, that line is not drawn hard and fast, because, often, the underlying challenges that result in them having to reside in these homes are similar. The therapy, support and rehabilitation may be customisable for each child, but overall their services and programmes are run for all the youths in the home. There are also needs to ensure optimisation of resources, so that the children get the support that they need.

So, the concern is whether we are actually monitoring the situation. I understand that it is not hard and fast in terms of the segregation between the children who are there for care and protection and for offending behaviours. Are we looking to make sure that there is no adverse effects especially of children with offending behaviours, on children who need care and protection.

I think the Member alludes to what you call "contamination", especially in adult prisons' situation. Criminology documents that very well. Certainly, in the context of the MSF's Youth Homes, our aim is to provide the rehabilitative environment. Certainly, young people or youth offenders who have committed offences may have a different risk profile. Ultimately, the youth guidance officers take a very clear and careful interest in the progress of all the children who have to be in these homes and ensure that negative influences are curtailed as far as possible.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*